Friday, December 21, 2012

National Assault Weapon Registry

Yesterday I proposed that there ought to be a
public, accessible registry of assault-type guns in the United States.
This would be similar to the sex offenders’ registry that locates these
offenders in neighborhoods. One would simply enter a Zip Code and the
addresses would show up. With this information, neighbors would
have valuable information upon which to make important decisions.

23 comments:

This would be the worst idea I have ever seen a gun control proponent suggest when evaluated from the standpoint of, "Will this reduce gun violence."

One of the major ways criminals get guns is by stealing them, whether from cop cars (not common but I've seen a few stories about it), gun stores, or people's homes.

A listing like you are describing would allow criminals to have a shopping list of which homes have these guns. Some criminals who just want to steal jewelry to pawn for drugs would stay away from those homes, but others who want to start a business in supplying guns to the black market could be assured of exactly what their score would be.

I think there should be a national registry on people that don't own guns, strictly voluntary of course. A registry like this could serve two purposes. First, we'll know for sure how many households own guns and second, neighbors would have valuable information upon which to make important decisions.

False equvalency, much? Sex offenders are people who have caused harm and pose a risk of future harm. Owners of semiautomatic rifles are not criminals. The vast majority of them do nothing wrong with their property.

If you want to know why gun-rights advocates hate gun control advocates, put yourself in our shoes. How would you take it if you were compared with sex offenders? And it's not just rhetoric. Your side really believes this. So ask yourself what you'd do, Mikeb.

Greg, you're being your usual melodramatic self. He wasn't comparing gun owners to sex offenders. He said the registry could be organized like that. But you knew this and purposely exaggerated his position. I believe you do that when you feel the true position is not objectionable enough. Why else would you exaggerate like that.

Anytime a registry is suggested and compared to the sex offender registry, those who would be registered are going to feel insulted and compared, at least a little bit, to sex offenders.

I understand your contention that he was only using the sex offender registry as an example of how to administer the database, but he does go a bit further. After my earlier post about the unintended consequences of such a registry, I looked at the full post rather than just you excerpt. It was full of winking innuendo about avoiding "that house" and "that guy." The tone, taken with the comparison, seemed to be a somewhat insulting exercise in *wink wink nudge nudge* "Aren't the gun guys icky."

You cut out one paragraph to start a discussion based on the underlying idea, and from your reaction to that discussion, I don't think you meant any offense, but the original author seemed to intend it and did rub us all raw.

If you think I'm being melodramatic, think of it this way:I'm assuming, from the e-mail address and a few less than charitable statements hurled your way, that you are British. Imagine, if you were living in the US and taking part in a discussion about Immigration policy, someone posted a link to an article suggesting a database of all immigrants to be administered like the sex offender registry. A little insulting, and dangerous as providing an address book for violent xenophobes.

Then imagine that you look at the original proposal and it talks about how we need this so that we can tell our kids to avoid "that house" because the man that lives there is perverse...he puts MILK in his tea! We can't have him influencing our children, or maybe turning them into Mrs. Lovett's Meat Pies.

And in closing, I don't think British people cook children into pies. However, neither do most people with Assault weapons want to hurt children, or have a tendency to massacre their neighborhood as the author of the original post seemed to imply.

Rome. Always wanted to see it, but didn't have time to get that far south when I studied in Scotland.

I know you agreed to my point, and I'm sorry if I belabored my point in the other post above. My first post was an attempt to make a point about the efficacy of the proposed program. My second post was intended to point out that the tone of the piece was a bit sharp and was not very conducive to polite discussion.

Jake, you're sounding a lot like Greg. Mudrake wasn't comparing gun owners to sex offenders. He said the registry could be organized like that. But you knew this and purposely exaggerated his position. I believe you do that when you feel the true position is not objectionable enough. Why else would you exaggerate like that.

Even if the weapon is in a safe, thieves can crack those. If they know there is a score to be made, they can afford to bring their favorite safe cracking tools, be it a cutting torch or a high tech setup to drill the safe and crack it.

You don't see that much use of such equipment because people don't always know they'll need it, and it's expensive to drag around to every heist. Where you do see it is the stories about people who are investing in gold because they don't trust the stock market. Periodically, one of them lets word get around too freely, and returns home to find his safe raided by a professional crew.

In other words, you have no answer. Tyranny has no answer other than force, and that's what pisses you off about America. The people retain power--both through a belief in freedom that large numbers in law enforcement and the military share and through arms and numbers.

This is a wonderful idea. When I buy a house, I want to know if the neighborhood is filled with insane klowns with military weapons, or if the neighborhood is filled with good people. Good people do not buy assault rifles, which are bought by current or future criminals.